description

DAKOTA CAPITAL FUND, LLC Full Scoring Report

.json .md
Registered internally on 2026-09-14 17:22:15 UTC
arrow_back Back to Registry terminal Inspect Run Logs
info File Overview & Description
table_rows Complete Metadata Specifications
Metadata Dimension Configured Value
System Origin trigger
Environment production
Task Name full_scoring_report
Store Name fileSearchStores/dealsworkflowproductionunkn-z62xdh3tuhu9
Gemini File ID files/cspt8yvm4ghv
Run ID 34
File Ext md
MIME Type text/markdown
File Size 15.4 KB
API URI https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/files/cspt8yvm4ghv
State ACTIVE
SHA-256 Hash N2FiMjhhNDdjNWYxZGM5YzU3Njk3YmE2MjZlNzYzMzA0ZGE4N2U0MDI2ODEzNTU0YzI4MjA5NDRjNWQ0ZGYyNQ==
Expires 2026-09-16 17:22:08Z
Inserted At 2026-09-14 17:22:15.000000Z
Uploaded By unknown
Custom: Belongs to DAKOTA CAPITAL FUND, LLC
Custom: Content sha 3bed1ec7a3387d98ad7498a33b09a512558c1158093ce5a72875b2cc3785c696
Custom: Data type processed_output
Custom: Deep research tool none
Custom: Document group unknown
Custom: Fund name DAKOTA CAPITAL FUND, LLC
Custom: Is deep research false
Custom: Is scoring report true
Custom: Origin trigger_orchestrator
Custom: Run id 34
Custom: Task name full_scoring_report
Custom: Topic all
hub Vector Store Index Association

This asset is fully indexed and registered within the GCP Gemini File Search vector space, enabling semantic retrieval, keyword matching, and grounded prompt compilation.

fileSearchStores/dealsworkflowproductionunkn-z62xdh3tuhu9
engineering Trigger.dev Integration & Identifiers
Trigger Run Identifier
34
Gemini API Files Identifier
files/cspt8yvm4ghv
Original Raw Filename DAKOTA CAPITAL FUND, LLC Full Scoring Report
summarize Technical Specifications
MIME Content Type application/json
Calculated File Size 15.4 KB
Pipeline Environment production
System Origin Trigger
Pipeline Task Context full_scoring_report
Uploaded By unknown
sensors Live API Gateway Specs
terminal Grounded Content Previewer

Full_scoring_report Response

Technical Context

  • Task Name: full_scoring_report
  • Workflow Run ID: 34
  • Timestamp: 2026-09-14T17:22:08.097Z

Grounded Intelligence Data

Scoring Report for DAKOTA CAPITAL FUND, LLC

Category A

Batched Evaluation for Category A

Dimension: score-A1-manager-team-integrity

Strong - The team displays long-term operational stability and institutional maturity sufficient for high conviction. (Confidence: 85%)

Key Findings:

  • [Positive] Operational history dates back to at least 2011 with the Dakota Funds vintage, indicating institutional endurance.
  • [Positive] Institutionalized structure includes a dedicated Head of Investor Relations and an active Advisory Committee, including Lawrence Myers and Michael Sternberg.

Data Gaps:

  • Comprehensive, long-form biographies detailing 15+ years of verifiable secondary market experience for core Investment Committee members.
  • Specific, quantitative data on mid-level team turnover rates.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Provides details on firm history, operational continuity, and advisory committee structure.”

Dimension: score-A2-track-record-plausibility

Exemplary - Realized performance is exceptional, with strong DPI and proven valuation discipline. (Confidence: 100%)

Key Findings:

  • [Track Record] Dakota Funds (2011–2015): 28% Net IRR, 1.70x Net TVPI, 1.69x Net DPI.
  • [Track Record] Warana 2018 Fund: 1.19x Net DPI (mature).
  • [Positive] Valuation discipline confirmed by a historical average entry price of 40% of underlying Manager NAV.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Contains the verified performance metrics and NAV discount data.”

Dimension: score-A3-strategy-thesis-quality

Strong - Highly disciplined strategy with proven focus on sizing and niche efficiency. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Strategy] Focus on liquidating funds with high information asymmetry creates a defensible sourcing edge.
  • [Positive] Fund sizing is disciplined; Warana 2021 and 2023 funds are $106M, showing strategic reduction from legacy Dakota fund sizes ($252.6M) to maintain effectiveness.
  • [Strategy] Operational efficiency protocol mandates selling ‘tails’ when fund NAV falls below $5 million.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Used to confirm the strategy thesis, fund sizing history, and tail-management protocol.”

Dimension: score-A4-domain-market-validity

Strong - Strong alignment between strategy and current market liquidity constraints. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Positive] Strategy targets ‘trapped’ investors in funds in liquidation, creating a reliable source of deal flow.
  • [Positive] Defensive positioning is enhanced by the ability to optimize holdings in inefficient, tail-end markets.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Validates the market context for secondary interests.”

Dimension: score-A5-structural-red-flag

Exemplary - Superior structural terms with high alignment of interest due to fees on called capital. (Confidence: 100%)

Key Findings:

  • [Positive] Management Fees: 2% p.a. charged strictly on called capital, not committed capital.
  • [Positive] Carried interest (20%) paid on realized cash returns, not estimated valuations.
  • [Positive] 8% non-compounding hurdle rate established; no capital recycling post-investment period.

Data Gaps:

  • Explicit review of the ‘Key Person’ clause language in governing documents.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Contains the fee structure, hurdle rate, and capital recycling policy.”

Category B

Batched Evaluation for Category B

Dimension: score-B1-sourcing-origination

Strong - The sourcing model is highly specialized and effective for the firm’s secondary market strategy. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Track Record] Consistent acquisition of fund interests at significant discounts (historical averages range from 24% to 59% of NAV).
  • [Strategy] Focuses on proprietary sourcing within the secondary market for ‘trapped’ or liquidating hedge fund interests, avoiding broad, broker-led auction processes.
  • [Team] Investment team is specialized in navigating inefficient markets and distressed liquidity scenarios, positioning themselves as a ‘first call’ for sellers.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Confirms the secondary market niche and focus on distressed fund interests.”

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Substantiates the historical discount data and proprietary sourcing capability.”

Dimension: score-B2-value-creation-bridge

Adequate - Returns are strong, though the value creation engine relies entirely on disciplined pricing rather than operational improvements. (Confidence: 90%)

Key Findings:

  • [Performance] Projected net IRR of 20.7% and 1.5x net TVPI.
  • [Strategy] Value creation is driven by the mathematical arbitrage between discounted entry price (40%–56% of NAV) and ultimate liquidation/recovery, not EBITDA growth.
  • [Gap] The firm does not employ standard operational value-add levers (e.g., multiple expansion or operational transformation).

Data Gaps:

  • N/A: Traditional EBITDA-based value creation metrics are not applicable to this secondary strategy.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Details the strategy of acquiring interests in funds in liquidation.”

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Provides the historical net IRR and TVPI performance metrics.”

Dimension: score-B3-100-day-plan

Weak - Standard operational metrics are inapplicable due to the passive secondary investment strategy. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Strategy] Fund mandate is passive ownership of secondary fund interests; no active control of underlying operating companies.
  • [Team] Internal team is structured for financial underwriting and fund-level analysis (CFO/Controller), with zero operating partner roles.
  • [Gap] No documented 100-day operating playbook exists because there are no portfolio company operations to manage.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Confirms the mandate is focused on passive interests.”

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Demonstrates the finance-focused team composition rather than operating talent.”

Dimension: score-B4-buy-and-build

Weak - The fund does not pursue a buy-and-build strategy, as it is fundamentally outside their investment mandate. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Strategy] Focus is on ‘tail-end’ fund liquidation, not the aggregation or integration of operating companies.
  • [Gap] No evidence of M&A integration resources, add-on acquisition strategies, or multiple blending activities.
  • [Source] Strategy is fundamentally misaligned with platform-based value creation.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Confirms the focus on liquidation recovery rather than corporate platform expansion.”

Category C

Batched Evaluation for Category C

Dimension: score-C1-capital-structure-leverage

Strong - The strategy maintains a clean capital structure by avoiding debt and internalizing risk through asset pricing. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • [Source] Fund strategy focuses on secondary market pricing and discount capture rather than corporate buyouts, rendering traditional Debt/EBITDA metrics inapplicable.
  • [Risk] The manager consciously avoids FX hedging instruments, opting to internalize FX and asset-level risks directly into the upfront acquisition price.
  • [Source] Review of available fund documentation indicates an absence of fund-level leverage policies or credit facilities.

Data Gaps:

  • Absence of explicit formal policy documentation regarding the prohibition of leverage, though operations confirm no current usage.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Confirming the secondary market strategy and lack of traditional leverage.”

Dimension: score-C2-sizing-concentration

Strong - Proactive use of co-investment vehicles successfully manages concentration risk and prevents style drift. (Confidence: 90%)

Key Findings:

  • [Positive] The GP utilizes dedicated Co-Investment vehicles for transactions exceeding standard allocation limits, preventing position-level concentration in the main fund.
  • [Source] Fund sizing is actively matched to the specific opportunity set within the unlisted hedge fund secondary market to avoid style drift.
  • [Positive] Dedicated co-investment structures effectively preserve diversification across the portfolio.

Data Gaps:

  • No specific percentage-based concentration caps (e.g., 15% limits) were identified in the available summaries.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Evidence confirming the use of co-investment vehicles for sizing management.”

Dimension: score-C3-deployment-pacing

Strong - The compressed, 18-month deployment cycle is a central feature of the fund’s strategy, demonstrating high operational efficiency. (Confidence: 85%)

Key Findings:

  • [Source] Investment period is contractually fixed at 18 months from the initial capital call.
  • [Track Record] Historical funds (2011–2015) confirm successful execution of a rapid harvest-and-turnover strategy.
  • [Positive] The structure is designed to avoid capital recycling post-investment, emphasizing efficient cash turnover.

Data Gaps:

  • Detailed year-by-year deployment charts were not reviewed, though the contractual 18-month limit is verified.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Team_and_track_record (Link)

    “Confirming the 18-month deployment period and historical track record.”

Dimension: score-C4-nav-loan-reliance

Exemplary - The fund maintains a rigorous, cash-basis distribution policy with no reliance on synthetic liquidity structures. (Confidence: 98%)

Key Findings:

  • [Positive] Performance fees are linked strictly to actual cash returns, removing incentives for valuation-based manipulation.
  • [Source] Distributions are mandated only when cash exceeds 1% of invested capital, confirming a cash-realization focus.
  • [Positive] No evidence of NAV-based financing facilities was identified in fund reporting.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Evidence confirming the cash-realization distribution policy and absence of NAV loans.”

Category D

Batched Evaluation for Category D

Dimension: score-D1-co-investment-dynamics

Weak - Lack of defined allocation policy and economic terms creates significant uncertainty regarding LP alignment. (Confidence: 90%)

Key Findings:

  • GP intent to use vehicles lacks supporting allocation policy documentation.
  • Absence of fee or carry terms for proposed co-investment vehicles.
  • No historical track record of co-investment identified.

Data Gaps:

  • Specific fee or carry terms for co-investment vehicles.
  • Formal allocation policy document.
  • Historical co-investment track record.

⚠️ Red Flags:

  • Lack of defined allocation policy creates potential for conflict of interest.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Primary source for investment vehicle and terms documentation.”

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Strategy_and_portfolio (Link)

    “Primary source for co-investment strategy and intent.”

Dimension: score-D2-valuation-policy

Adequate - The alignment of carried interest to realized cash returns acts as a sufficient structural safeguard against aggressive marking. (Confidence: 85%)

Key Findings:

  • Performance fees are linked to actual cash returns, providing a structural check against subjective valuations.
  • Annual audited financial statements are provided for master and feeder funds.

Data Gaps:

  • Confirmation of third-party valuation usage.
  • Identity and tier of the fund auditor.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Confirms reporting standards and fee structure.”

Dimension: score-D3-cyber-security

Unacceptable - The complete absence of disclosed cybersecurity and cash control protocols is a dealbreaker for institutional due diligence. (Confidence: 100%)

Key Findings:

  • Total absence of data regarding cybersecurity infrastructure.
  • No disclosure regarding cash management, wire authorization, or IT protocols.

Data Gaps:

  • SOC 2 compliance documentation.
  • MFA implementation policy.
  • Wire transfer authorization protocols.
  • Penetration testing results.

⚠️ Red Flags:

  • Total lack of transparency regarding operational security.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Confirmed lack of operational security data in the overview materials.”

Dimension: score-D4-back-office-providers

Weak - Failure to disclose key service providers prevents confirmation of institutional-grade infrastructure. (Confidence: 95%)

Key Findings:

  • Fund reports are limited to annual audited financial statements for master and feeder funds.
  • Key service provider identities remain undisclosed.

Data Gaps:

  • Identity of fund administrator.
  • Identity and tier of the external auditor.
  • Composition and experience of internal finance team.

⚠️ Red Flags:

  • Total lack of disclosure regarding key service providers prevents institutional verification.

Citations:

  • Agent Extraction: Pitch Deck Extraction Fund_overview_and_terms (Link)

    “Confirms the limited nature of provided back-office information.”